AUTHOR
INFORMATION: Stephen Pollard (born c. 1965) is a British author and
journalist who is currently editor of The Jewish Chronicle. He is a
former Chairman of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary
Antisemitism and a former president of the Centre for the New Europe, a
free-market think tank based in Brussels. He has written columns for several
publications, including The Times and the Daily Mail, and also
has also maintained a blog. Pollard is an alumnus of John Lyon School and
Mansfield College, Oxford.

LET
me ask you a blunt question. Do you think Levi Bellfield, the murderer of Milly
Dowler and two other young women, should still be alive?

My
answer is no. Milly’s sister Gemma agrees, observing: “Justice is an eye for an
eye, you should pay a life for a life. In my eyes no real justice has been
done.”

If the opinion polls are right, that view is shared by roughly half the
population.

A poll in September 2010 found that 51 per cent supported reinstating the death
penalty for murder, compared with 37 per cent who oppose it.

A few years ago I’d have been with that 37 per cent. I was opposed to capital
punishment.

Of all the arguments against, one mattered most: better that 99 guilty men
should go free than that one innocent man should be killed.

So my view was that murderers should be locked up but not executed. Keep them
in spartan conditions.

Make sure life really means life. And do everything possible to ensure that
they spend the rest of their lives in misery.

Then something happened which changed my mind. In December 2006 Saddam Hussein
was hanged in Iraq.

Try as I might, I couldn’t think of a single reason why anyone could disagree
with his execution.

There was no doubt about his guilt. He had murdered hundreds of thousands by
deliberate actions, some in cold blood.

He expressed no remorse. He was as close to pure evil as any man can get.

To
me the question wasn’t whether he should have been executed. It was whether there
were any valid reasons not to kill him. And there were none.

But either capital punishment is immoral or it isn’t. It can’t be immoral
occasionally. And if it was right that Saddam was hanged then it’s clearly not
an issue of principle.

In which case why Saddam and not Ian Huntley? Or Levi Bellfield? After all, who
could fail to be moved by the words of Milly Dowler’s mother Sally outside
court yesterday?

“The lengths to protect his human rights have seemed so unfair compared to what
we as a family have had to endure. I hope that whilst he is in prison he is
treated with the same brutality he dealt out to his victim and that his life is
a living hell.”

This is where so much of the opposition to the death penalty falls apart.

When Saddam was executed the condemnations were deafening in their silence.

With very few – entirely honourable – exceptions there was not a word of
criticism of the Iraqi decision to hang him.

But if, as opponents of capital punishment believe, it is immoral to execute Ian
Huntley, Ian Brady or any other killer, it was surely just as immoral to
execute Saddam – or Martin Bormann, Hermann Göring and other Nazis who were
convicted at Nuremburg.

Yet when Saddam was executed there was not a word of condemnation from the
Labour government.

But to a man and woman its members oppose the death penalty here. It is a
perverted moral calculus which holds that a death sentence is acceptable if
there are hundreds of thousands of murder victims but unacceptable if there are
only a few.

We can argue about the details – to which forms of murder the death penalty
should apply and in what circumstances – but the principle is clear. That is
why Levi Bellfield should hang.

Thank God it is impossible for most of us to have any real understanding of
what the through over the past nine years.

To lose a child in any circumstances is an unimaginable nightmare. To lose a
daughter in the way that Milly was taken is too painful to think about.

No normal human being could follow Bellfield’s trial without being stunned by
the gut-wrenching tragedy suffered by the Dowlers and enraged by the depravity
of her murderer.

As if that was not enough suffering for them to endure, Bellfield put them
through further trauma at the trial by refusing to admit his guilt and
attempting to switch the blame for Milly’s death to her father Bob Dowler.

Which of us could endure our every foible being exposed and picked over with
forensic questioning from a barrister?

We all have areas of our life which are intensely private. Exposure alone would
be bad enough, allowing everyone else to pick over and comment on.

But exposure as part of an attempt by your daughter’s murderer to insinuate
that you, in fact, are the real cause of her death?

Like so much else in this terrible story that must have been unendurable.

AS VICTIMS’ Commissioner Louise Casey said yesterday: “No one in this country
can think what happened to them in that courtroom was right.”

The Dowlers’ private lives were torn to shreds at the Old Bailey. Milly’s
mother Sally and her sister Gemma, 25, collapsed, unable to bear it any longer
as the verdict was returned.

Yes, the legal process which allowed that to happen must be examined. But one
man was responsible for their suffering, not the legal system.

It speaks volumes about Bellfield that he thought nothing of letting his
victim’s family go through hell in the witness box.

So push me for a reason why he should not be executed and I struggle. All I can
come up with is that idea of his remaining life being a “living hell” as Mrs
Dowler put it.

But from what we know about the criminal justice system the idea of life
meaning life is unlikely.

Who would bet against some human rights organisation campaigning for his
release in 20 years’ time?

As for the idea that it is better that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent
man is hanged: better for whom?

PLEASE GO TO THIS BLOG POST TO SEE AN EARLIER ARTICLE WRITTEN BY
STEPHEN POLLARD.

QUOTE: "There are
certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors
of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally
defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end
of the world." "Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of
contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which
defends the imposition of the death penalty."

AUTHOR: John Hardon A.K.A John A. S. A. Hardon, S.J., Servant of God (June 18,
1914 – December 30, 2000) was a Jesuit priest, writer, and theologian. He is
the founder of The Holy Trinity Apostolate. Hardon was born into a devout
Catholic family in Midland, Pennsylvania, and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. He
obtained his bachelor's degree at John Carroll University before entering the
Society of Jesus in 1936. He obtained a master's degree in philosophy at Loyola
University Chicago, studied theology at West Baden College in West Baden,
Indiana, and was ordained a priest on June 18, 1947 on his 33rd birthday. He
received his doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in
Rome. Father Hardon was a very prominent member of the Jesuit community, which
is known for its academic rigor, and wrote dozens of books on religion and
theology, including: The Catholic Catechism (1975), a defining volume of
Catholic orthodoxy; and the Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980), the first major
Catholic reference dictionary published after the Second Vatican Council
(1962–1965). Hardon was also a major contributor to Catholic newspapers and
magazines and was executive editor of The Catholic Faith magazine. Hardon had a
close working relationship with Pope Paul VI, engaging in several initiatives
at the Pope's request, including his authoring of The Catholic Catechism.
Father Hardon's Catholic Catechism was a significant post–Vatican II work in
the sense that it essentially brought modern Catholic teaching and faith into
one book, unlike any other before, and was a precursor to the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, which is the official codified teaching of the Catholic
Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992. Hardon served as a consultant
for the drafting of that document. Father Hardon died in Clarkston, Michigan,
on December 30, 2000, after suffering from several illnesses. Having been known
throughout his life as a holy man, there is interest among some Catholics for
his beatification and a Church-sanctioned prayer for that cause has been
written. According to Church law, Father Hardon could have his cause for
beatification opened by the Church as early as December 30, 2005. If that
happens it would place him on the path towards possible sainthood. An effort is
underway to establish a Father Hardon library and study center at the Shrine of
Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin. ... father John Hardon is
beatified, and has been for a few years now.

David (/ˈdeɪvɪd/; Hebrew: דָּוִד,
דָּוִיד,
Modern David Tiberian Dāwîḏ; ISO 259-3 Dawid; Arabic: داود‎ Dāwūd)
according to the Hebrew Bible, was the second king of the United Kingdom of
Israel, and according to the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke, an
ancestor of Jesus. His life is conventionally dated to c. 1040–970 BC, his
reign over Judah c. 1010–1002 BC, and his reign over the United Kingdom of
Israel c. 1002–970 BC.

The Books of Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1
Chronicles are the only sources of information on David, although the Tel Dan
Stele (dated c. 850–835 BC) contains the phrase בית דוד (Beit David), read as "House of David", which
most scholars take as confirmation of the existence in the mid-9th century BC
of a Judean royal dynasty called the House of David.

He is depicted as a righteous king,
although not without faults, as well as an acclaimed warrior, musician, and
poet, traditionally credited for composing many of the psalms contained in the
Book of Psalms.

David is central to Jewish, Christian,
and Islamic doctrine and culture. Biblical tradition maintains that a direct descendant
of David will be the Messiah. In Islam, he is considered a prophet.

Joab (Hebrew יוֹאָבModernYo'avTiberian Yôʼāḇ) the son of Zeruiah, was
the nephew of King David and the commander of his army, according to the Hebrew
Bible.

Name

The name Joab (יוֹאָב) is derived from Yahweh (יהוה), the name of the God of Israel, and the
Hebrew word 'av' (אָב), meaning 'father'. It therefore means
'Yahweh [is] father'. Apart from David's nephew, the name is given to two other
individuals in the Bible (see Ezra 2:6, 8:9). It is also a common name in
contemporary Israel.

The name Yoav (Joab) may also be
attributed to the district of Moav (Moab in Latin transcription),eastern bank
of the Jordan, from where Ruth the Moabitess came.

Joab was
the son of Zeruiah, a sister of king David, who made him captain of his army (2
Samuel 8:16; 20:23; 1 Chronicles 11:6; 18:15; 27:34). He had two
brothers, Abishai and Asahel. Asahel was killed by Abner,
for which Joab took revenge by murdering Abner against David's wishes (2 Samuel
2:13-32; 3:27).

After
leading the assault on the fortress of Mount Zion, he was promoted to
the rank of General (1 Chronicles 27:34). He led the army against Syria,
Ammon, Moab and Edom. He also took part in David's murder
of Uriah (2 Samuel 11:14-25).

Joab played
a pivotal role as the commander of David's forces during Absalom's
rebellion. Absalom, one of David's sons, rallied much of Israel in
rebellion against David, who was forced to flee with only his most trusted men.
However, David could not bring himself to harm his son, and ordered that none
of his men should kill Absalom during the ensuing battle. However, when a man
reported that Absalom had been found, alive, caught in a tree, Joab and his men
killed him (2 Samuel 18:1-33).

Hearing of
David's grief over the reported death of Absalom, Joab confronted and
admonished David. The king followed Joab's advice to make a public appearance
to encourage his troops (2 Samuel 19:1-8).

David later
replaced him as commander of the army with his nephew, Amasa (2 Samuel
17:25; 19:13). Joab later killed Amasa (2 Samuel 20:8-13; 1 Kings 2:5).

Joab and
other commanders began questioning David's judgment (2 Samuel 24:2-4). As David
neared the end of his reign, Joab offered his allegiance to David's eldest son,
Adonijah rather than to the promised king, Solomon (1 Kings 1:1-27).

On the
brink of death, David told Solomon to have Joab killed citing Joab's
past betrayals and the blood that he was guilty of, and for this Solomon
ordered his death by the hand of Benaiah (1 Kings
2:29-34), who then replaced him as commander of the army. Joab was buried in
'the wilderness' (1 Kings 2:34). It is interesting to note that Joab fled to
the Tent of the Tabernacle (where Adonijah has previously sought successful
refuge (1 Kings 1:50-53)) and told Benaiah that he will die there. Benaiah,
as ordered by King Solomon, kills Joab in the House of Yahweh.

Josephus

According to Josephus, Joab did not
kill Abner out of revenge, because he had forgiven him for the death of his
brother, Asahel, the reason being that Abner had slain Asahel honorably in
combat after he had twice warned Asahel and had no other choice but to kill him
out of self-defense. If this was the case, the reason Joab killed Abner may
have been that he became a threat to his rank of general, since Abner had
switched to the side of David and granted him control over the tribe of
Benjamin. Yet the narrative explicitly states that Joab killed Abner "to
avenge the blood of his brother Asahel" (2 Samuel 3:27).

MY
THOUGHTS:

Many
Christians oppose to the death penalty have the habit of saying, “Only God has
the right to take life.”

If
they read the case of how the dying King David told his son, Solomon to have
Joab executed because he was a murderer. Was David playing God? No. He was
obeying God in putting murderers to death. David was in authority and he had
the right to take life.

Please see The Catechism of Trent on THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT: "Thou shalt not
kill" on the section: Execution of Criminals

“Another
kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted
power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far
from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this
Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the
preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the
civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to
this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.
Hence these words of David in Psalms 101 verse 8: In the morning I put to death
all the wicked of the land that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity
from the city of the Lord.”